Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Pentcho Valev

Panic in Einsteiniana: No Time Dilation

8 posts in this topic

Of all the Einsteinians panicked by the fact that there is no time dilation on quasars not one could think of a reason why the absurd consequences of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate should stop destroying human rationality:

http://physics.about.com/b/2010/04/22/could-quasars-disprove-time-dilation.htm

"Could Quasars Disprove Time Dilation? Research involving one of the key aspects of relativity - time dilation - has run into some snags. When performing a study of distant quasars, Mike Hawkins of Edinburgh's Royal Observatory discovered a discrepancy which brings a lot of cosmological assumptions into question. Quasars are objects in the center of distant galaxies which send beams of potent electromagnetic energy out. The key thing, though, is that they exhibit a variation in intensity which can be viewed as a regular ticking clock. What Hawkins did was compare the timing of quasars at different distances ... and discovered that the time dilation one would expect on the further galaxies (because the universe is expanding) was not taking place. So what does this mean? (...) For example, it could mean that the universe is not expanding... (...) Or, alternately, one proposed explanation is that black holes throughout the universe bend the light from the quasars in such a way that it creates a micro-lensing which removes the time dilation effect. (...) Finally, it could also represent a fundamental misunderstanding of how quasars operate, which is probably the most straightforward scenario of the bunch. Any of these explanations provide some rich ground for future research ... and for wild speculation..."

http://msp.warwick.ac.uk/~cpr/paradigm/hawkins-time-dilation.pdf

Intrinsic redshift in quasars, COLIN ROURKE

"A recent paper by MRS Hawkins "On time dilation in quasar light curves" conclusively proves that quasars have instrinsic redshift. (...) ...redshift and time dilation are effectively identical in general relativity. (...) ...it follows that if a radiation source exhibits redshift then it also exhibits the correctly correlated time dilation. It is important to stress that this fact is an elementary consequence of the spacetime geometry underlying General Relativity and has no dependence whatsoever on cosmological assumptions. It is equally true in an expanding universe and in a static or contracting or chaotic universe and it is true whatever the cause of the redshift whether Doppler or gravitational or due to changes in the geometry of spacetime or any other relativistic effect. It is also true in any conceivable variant of general relativity. Any theory based on spacetime with well defined light paths will have this property."

Einsteinians, your "wild speculation" has gone too far (theoretical physics is dead, don't you see?). If you have successfully managed to camouflage the absurdity of "time dilation" over the years, the absurdity of the member of the same gang, "length contraction", is still awaiting your attention (after all, the force is with you - dissidents like me are just shouting in vacuum):

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html

"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. Now someone takes the pole and tries to run (at nearly the speed of light) through the barn with the pole horizontal. Special Relativity (SR) says that a moving object is contracted in the direction of motion: this is called the Lorentz Contraction. So, if the pole is set in motion lengthwise, then it will contract in the reference frame of a stationary observer.....So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the contracted pole shut up in your barn. The runner emerges from the far door unscathed.....If the doors are kept shut the rod will obviously smash into the barn door at one end. If the door withstands this the leading end of the rod will come to rest in the frame of reference of the stationary observer. There can be no such thing as a rigid rod in relativity so the trailing end will not stop immediately and the rod will be compressed beyond the amount it was Lorentz contracted. If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be trapped IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the barn."

http://www.quebecscience.qc.ca/Revolutions

Stéphane Durand: "Pour mieux comprendre le phénomène de ralentissement du temps, il est préférable d'aborder un autre phénomène tout aussi paradoxal: la contraction des longueurs. Car la vitesse affecte non seulement l'écoulement du temps, mais aussi la longueur des objets. Ainsi, une fusée en mouvement apparaît plus courte que lorsqu'elle est au repos. Là aussi, plus la vitesse est grande, plus la contraction est importante. Et, comme pour le temps, les effets ne deviennent considérables qu'à des vitesses proches de celle de la lumière. Dans la vie de tous les jours, cette contraction est imperceptible. Cependant, si une fusée de 100 m passait devant nous à une vitesse proche de celle de la lumière, elle pourrait sembler ne mesurer que 50 m, ou même moins. Bien sûr, la question qui vient tout de suite à l'esprit est: «Cette contraction n'est-elle qu'une illusion?» Il semble tout à fait incroyable que le simple mouvement puisse comprimer un objet aussi rigide qu'une fusée. Et pourtant, la contraction est réelle... mais SANS COMPRESSION physique de l'objet! Ainsi, une fusée de 100 m passant à toute vitesse dans un tunnel de 60 m pourrait être entièrement contenue dans ce tunnel pendant une fraction de seconde, durant laquelle il serait possible de fermer des portes aux deux bouts! La fusée est donc réellement plus courte. Pourtant, il n'y a PAS DE COMPRESSION matérielle ou physique de l'engin."

http://www.parabola.unsw.edu.au/vol35_no1/vol35_no1_2.pdf

Parabola Volume 35, Issue 1 (1999)

LENGTH AND RELATIVITY by John Steele

"The Pole in the Barn Paradox. Now we know about length contraction, we can invent some amusing uses of it. Suppose you want to fit a 20m pole into a 10m barn. If the pole were moving fast enough, then length contraction means it would be short enough. (...) Now comes the paradox. According to your friend who is going to slam the barn doors shut just as the end of the pole goes in, the pole is 10m long, and therefore it fits. However as far as you are concerned, the pole is still 20m long but the barn is now only 5m long: length contraction must work both ways by the first postulate. How can you fit this 20m pole into a 5m barn? This paradox is apparently due to Wolfgang Rindler of the University of Texas at Dallas. Of course the key to this is relativity of simultaneity. Your friend sees the front end of the pole hit the back wall of the barn at the same time as the doors are closed, but you (and the pole) do not see things this way. You are standing still and see a 5m long barn coming towards you at some shockingly high speed. When the back of the barn hits the front of the pole (and takes the front of the pole with it), the back end of the pole must still be at rest. It cannot 'know' about the crash at the front, because the shock wave travelling along the pole telling it about the crash travels at some finite speed. The front of the barn has only 15m to go to get to the back of the pole, but the shock wave has to travel the whole length of the pole, namely 20m. The speed of the barn is such that even if this shock wave travelled at the speed of light, it would not get to the back of the pole before the front of the barn did. Hence in both frames of reference, the pole fits inside the barn (and will presumably shatter when the doors are closed)."

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Relativ/bugrivet.html

"The bug-rivet paradox is a variation on the twin paradox and is similar to the pole-barn paradox.....The end of the rivet hits the bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it looks like the bug is squashed.....All this is nonsense from the bug's point of view. The rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just 0.35 cm down in the hole! The rivet doesn't get close to the bug....The paradox is not resolved."

Pentcho Valev

pvalev@yahoo.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the absurd consequences of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate should stop destroying human rationality

Just a quick question, how has this happened exactly? How has rationality been destroyed by an over a century old and altered/matured/grown/changed theory?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a quick question, how has this happened exactly? How has rationality been destroyed by an over a century old and altered/matured/grown/changed theory?

Part of the answer:

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a909857880

Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox" : Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages 57-78

"In the interwar period there was a significant school of thought that repudiated Einstein's theory of relativity on the grounds that it contained elementary inconsistencies. Some of these critics held extreme right-wing and anti-Semitic views, and this has tended to discredit their technical objections to relativity as being scientifically shallow. This paper investigates an alternative possibility: that the critics were right and that the success of Einstein's theory in overcoming them was due to its strengths as an ideology rather than as a science. The clock paradox illustrates how relativity theory does indeed contain inconsistencies that make it scientifically problematic. These same inconsistencies, however, make the theory ideologically powerful. The implications of this argument are examined with respect to Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper's accounts of the philosophy of science. (...) The prediction that clocks will move at different rates is particularly well known, and the problem of explaining how this can be so without violating the principle of relativity is particularly obvious. The clock paradox, however, is only one of a number of simple objections that have been raised to different aspects of Einstein's theory of relativity. (Much of this criticism is quite apart from and often predates the apparent contradiction between relativity theory and quantum mechanics.) It is rare to find any attempt at a detailed rebuttal of these criticisms by professional physicists. However, physicists do sometimes give a general response to criticisms that relativity theory is syncretic by asserting that Einstein is logically consistent, but that to explain why is so difficult that critics lack the capacity to understand the argument. In this way, the handy claim that there are unspecified, highly complex resolutions of simple apparent inconsistencies in the theory can be linked to the charge that antirelativists have only a shallow understanding of the matter, probably gleaned from misleading popular accounts of the theory. (...) The argument for complexity reverses the scientific preference for simplicity. Faced with obvious inconsistencies, the simple response is to conclude that Einstein's claims for the explanatory scope of the special and general theory are overstated. To conclude instead that that relativity theory is right for reasons that are highly complex is to replace Occam's razor with a potato masher. (...) The defence of complexity implies that the novice wishing to enter the profession of theoretical physics must accept relativity on faith. It implicitly concedes that, without an understanding of relativity theory's higher complexities, it appears illogical, which means that popular "explanations" of relativity are necessarily misleading. But given Einstein's fame, physicists do not approach the theory for the first time once they have developed their expertise. Rather, they are exposed to and probably examined on popular explanations of relativity in their early training. How are youngsters new to the discipline meant to respond to these accounts? Are they misled by false explanations and only later inculcated with true ones? What happens to those who are not misled? Are they supposed to accept relativity merely on the grounds of authority? The argument of complexity suggests that to pass the first steps necessary to join the physics profession, students must either be willing to suspend disbelief and go along with a theory that appears illogical; or fail to notice the apparent inconsistencies in the theory; or notice the inconsistencies and maintain a guilty silence in the belief that this merely shows that they are unable to understand the theory. The gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and research institutes are disinclined to support or employ anyone who raises problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are then able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics. Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of elementary logical errors, they would be faced with the embarrassing question of why this had not been noticed earlier. Under these circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on scientific grounds, is eminently justifiable on grounds of realpolitik. Supporters of relativity theory have protected both the theory and their own reputations by shutting their opponents out of professional discourse. (...) The argument that Einstein fomented an ideological rather than a scientific revolution helps to explain of one of the features of this revolution that puzzled Kuhn: despite the apparent scope of the general theory, very little has come out of it. Viewing relativity theory as an ideology also helps to account for Poppers doubts over whether special theory can be retained, given experimental results in quantum mechanics and Einsteins questionable approach to defining simultaneity. Both Kuhn and Popper have looked to the other branch of the theory - Popper to the general and Kuhn to the special - to try and retain their view of Einstein as a revolutionary scientist. According to the view proposed here, this only indicates how special and general theories function together as an ideology, as when one side of the theory is called into question, the other can be called upon to rescue it. The triumph of relativity theory represents the triumph of ideology not only in the profession of physics bur also in the philosophy of science. These conclusions are of considerable interest to both theoretical physics and to social epistemology. It would, however, be naïve to think that theoretical physicists will take the slightest notice of them."

Pentcho Valev

pvalev@yahoo.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice diatribe. I guess you never use GPS and don't believe in particle accelerators, either?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the gist is "the collective wisdom is never questioned" is the basis for your proof that Einsteinian understanding of physics is flawed?

That happens in every field. In every profession. There's still running firefights over OOParts amongst the archaeological community. The relative merits of extrinsic motivation versus intrinsic motivation in teaching.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try paragraphs, Pentcho. Here's one to demonstrate.

And I'm afraid the loose, unsupported, waffling and inappropriate analogies provided above, along with a complete lack of maths and no sign whatsoever of any real understanding of the topics, means ..

Bye!

{folds barn pole in half, puts it in barn, leaves thread..}

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Pentcho Valev FAQ:

http://bip.cnrs-mrs.fr/bip10/valevfaq.htm

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC

"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann

p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also a natural one? Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous."

http://www.amazon.com/Physical-Relativity-Space-time-Structure-Perspective/dp/0199275831

Physical Relativity: Space-time Structure from a Dynamical Perspective

Harvey R. Brown

"It is the ultimate irony that the paper which would spell the demise of the luminiferous ether had as one of its central postulates what Wolfgang Pauli aptly called the 'true essence of the old aether point of view'. (...) The most remarkable feature of Einstein's light postulate is the fact that it seems at first sight antithetical to his own revolutionary notion of the light quantum. In 1905 it was far from clear to Einstein what sort of thing the light quantum precisely is, but it must have seemed closer in nature to a bullet than a wave. The fact that nonetheless Einstein adopted the LP over an emission theory of light is testimony to the sureness of his physical intuition in the midst of blooming, buzzing confusion."

In 1954 Einstein realized that the "ultimate irony" had turned into ultimate tragedy:

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2d00-433a-b7e3-4a09145525ca.pdf

Albert Einstein 1954: "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics."

If there is doubt as to whether the statement:

"physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures"

is equivalent to the statement:

"physics cannot be based on the assumption that the speed of photons, unlike the speed of bullets, is independent of the speed of the light source"

here are a few clues:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0101/0101109.pdf

"The two first articles (January and March) establish clearly a discontinuous structure of matter and light. The standard look of Einstein's SR is, on the contrary, essentially based on the continuous conception of the field."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/

"And then, in June, Einstein completes special relativity, which adds a twist to the story: Einstein's March paper treated light as particles, but special relativity sees light as a continuous field of waves. Alice's Red Queen can accept many impossible things before breakfast, but it takes a supremely confident mind to do so. Einstein, age 26, sees light as wave and particle, picking the attribute he needs to confront each problem in turn. Now that's tough."

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0305/0305457v3.pdf

New varying speed of light theories

Joao Magueijo

"In sharp contrast, the constancy of the speed of light has remain sacred, and the term "heresy" is occasionally used in relation to "varying speed of light theories". The reason is clear: the constancy of c, unlike the constancy of G or e, is the pillar of special relativity and thus of modern physics. Varying c theories are expected to cause much more structural damage to physics formalism than other varying constant theories."

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm

The Farce of Physics

Bryan Wallace

"Einstein's special relativity theory with his second postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together. Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate farce! (...) The speed of light is c+v."

[bryan Wallace wrote "The Farce of Physics" on his deathbed hence some imperfections in the text!]

Pentcho Valev

pvalev@yahoo.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.